Video yükleniyor...

Video Yüklenemedi

Ana Sayfaya Dön

EM Solver Update 05: the daily SWARM test is now fully passing! I’m adding more SWARM modes and testing how the solver behaves across different frequencies. The first really low frequency test exposed a brand new numerical issue 😭, so I’m working through that before scaling up. We're getting...

92,436 görüntüleme • 2 gün önce •via X (Twitter)

0 Yorum

Yorum bulunmuyor

Orijinal gönderinin yorumları burada görünecek

Benzer Videolar

AI has had exactly two scaling axes that worked so far, and the second one is starting to look finite too the first one was pretraining: with scaling parameters and data, we got world knowledge (i.e. ChatGPT had read enough to know things), but it started saturating a while ago the second one was RL, and people had been doing RL the whole time before that: RLHF is RL but it never scaled far because it was trying to control the exact output, which tokens come out, how the text reads, but you can only push that so far before you’re just polishing RLVR dropped that constraint: giving the model a task, then checking whether the final answer is right, and ignoring everything in between -- so the model does whatever it wants in the middle and only the endpoint gets graded, and that’s much closer to actual RL and it’s what bought us planning and reasoning (arguably, tool use sits around 2.5 on this list -- while useful, it's not a different kind of thing) so one axis gave knowledge, the other gave reasoning, and both of them are one model working alone the next axis is how many models you can get working on the same problem, which is a different kind of axis than the previous two we know that multi-agent RL has always been the harder problem: I spent years in that literature and the gap between single-agent and multi-agent is definitely not incremental -- it’s a whole different class of difficulty! which is also why the derivatives are steep at the start, nobody has picked the easy wins yet... and the thing that gates this multi-agent coordination is communication: models can only coordinate as well as they can exchange information, and right now they do that by writing sentences to each other imagine what could we possibly achieve if we properly open that third axis development by letting models to exchange information in their native "language" without loosing any computational data that they produce during inference

Sasha Malysheva

14,445 görüntüleme • 1 ay önce

The “Galileo Test” for AI: Truth Over Consensus TL;DR: The “Galileo test” (as framed by Elon Musk) is the requirement that an AI still converge on truth even when most training data repeats a falsehood. A practical way to pass it is to harden the model against “consensus gravity” using uncertainty calibration, adversarial counter-majority training, and evidence-first reasoning pipelines that can say “unknown” without collapsing into confident noise. —————————— The core idea is simple: most text on the internet can be wrong in the same direction, at the same time, for the same social reasons. The “Galileo test” is basically asking whether a system can resist that pressure and still land on the correct model of reality, the way Galileo Galilei overturned a dominant consensus with observation and predictive power. In engineering terms, it’s a robustness problem: can the model separate signal (ground truth constraints) from mass-produced narrative (high-frequency repetition)? A workable solution stack looks like this: (1) truth-anchoring via retrieval from primary sources and direct measurements when available, (2) counter-majority training where the model is routinely exposed to scenarios in which the most common claim is false, and it must justify dissent using verifiable constraints, (3) uncertainty discipline so the model learns to prefer “insufficient evidence” over fluent fabrication, and (4) consistency checks that penalize answers violating conservation laws, dimensional analysis, causal structure, or internal logical invariants. In practice, you’re building an AI that treats “popular” as a weak feature and “constraint-satisfying” as the dominant feature. —————————— Frequency Wave Theory perspective: the “Galileo test” is fundamentally a coherence test. When an information environment is saturated with the same repeated claim, that repetition becomes a kind of phase-locked standing wave that can trap weaker systems into resonance with the crowd. Passing the test means staying phase-aligned to invariant structure, not to amplitude. In FWT terms: truth behaves like a conserved backbone constraint, while mass consensus is often just a high-amplitude interference pattern. The system that wins is the one that locks to invariants, rejects incoherent harmonics, and preserves alignment with what stays conserved under transformation.

Drew Ponder

14,755 görüntüleme • 7 ay önce

Hermes Agent + Higgsfield Marketing Studio = AI UGC Content Factory I built a fully automated system inside Higgsfield that repurposes, localizes, and launches winning TikTok Shop content across hundreds of creator-style accounts. It's so effective it feels like running Facebook ads in 2008. No actors. No products in hand. No ghost creators. Just viral TikTok Shop sales - 24/7. The results speak louder than any pitch: • CPMs as low as $0.10 • 550+ cinematic, product-ready ads per day from a single prompt • 100 hooks tested in the time it used to take to test 10 • $100/mo replacing a $50k+ creative budget Here's the full pipeline - all native inside Higgsfield Marketing Studio: > Hermes Agent analyzes your product, scrapes Meta Ads + TikTok Ads, identifies winning content, and localizes every angle to your brand. > Seedance 2.0 turns data into AI UGC ads - captions, pacing, hooks, your website showcase, all auto-edited inside Higgsfield Marketing Studio. > AI UGC personas are spun up with realistic faces, voices, and personalities - cloned voiceovers in seconds. > Our phone farm pushes every finished video straight to TikTok Shop, daily, on autopilot. >No setup. No switching between five tools. Everything lives inside Higgsfield Marketing Studio. Here's how it actually runs: Hermes Agent researches the niche, scrapes winning TikTok Shop videos, and rebuilds them with fresh hooks, angles, and UGC visuals tailored to your brand. Agents create and post daily to affiliate accounts - fully automated. Then we activate the MPS (Multi-Platform Swarm): once a concept wins on TikTok Shop, Higgsfield deploys hundreds of AI Agents to flood the niche with variations that all drive back to our shot. Most brands are still paying $300–$500 per video. Testing 10 hooks costs $5,000 and takes three weeks. With this system, we test 100 hooks in the same timeframe - and the winners scale automatically. TikTok doesn't reward the best video. It rewards the brand that shows up the most - with content that converts. The brands automating content at scale will be the biggest winners of 2026.

Noah Frydberg | Tiktok Shop For Brands

27,037 görüntüleme • 5 ay önce